--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfr...@...> wrote: <snip> > Barry, on the other hand, I find highly amusing and often > insightful.
See, that's what I was trying to get at. I have *never* found his posts insightful, since well before there was a "feud" per se. Sometimes he's mildly amusing, but most of his attempts at humor are labored and leaden. As I've said frequently, he's a sloppy thinker. His logic is poor; he bases his theses on unfounded (and often unspoken) assumptions; he rarely considers alternative possibilities. He's prone to hyperbole so extreme it invalidates his points; he uses weasel words to load his arguments; he uses ambiguity to pivot from one step to another when there's really no connection. And of course there's his constant dishonesty, not to mention his inconsistency from one day (or even one post) to the next, as well as the same mantra-like themes repeated over and over again dressed up in different verbal costumes as if they were brand-new "insights." Then there's the constant demonization of those who don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* anything without at the same time putting down anyone who believes differently. In most cases, what he appears to do is start from his conclusion, what he wants to believe (or wants his readers to believe), and then work backward to put together a train of thought that seems to lead to that conclusion--but only if you don't examine it too closely. But he's very skilled with words; he knows how to make what he's saying *sound* logical and persuasive. You have to look past the fancy wordsmithing to the structure and content of his arguments to see how shallow and generally misbegotten they really are. All flash and little substance. My penchant for analyzing his posts and pointing out their shortcomings was what got the feud started way back on alt.m.t. At first, we had actual debates on substance, but he had such a hard time with those that eventually he gave up and resorted to attacking me personally instead. Now, that's *all* he does where I'm concerned, while I continue to dismantle his arguments on substance. > He, Rick and Curtis are the "must read" posts when > I'm looking in on FFL. Curtis is always a must-read. Obviously I don't always agree with him, but there's often more insight in a single one of his posts than Barry manages in many months' worth. Rick has a knack for very straightforward, no-nonsense presentation, complete with supporting facts.
